Neff

This was an action for the conversion of an automobile.

The court found the following to be the facts:

Some time probably in April, 1925, respondent returned to California, but did not call upon nor communicate with appellant until late in the fall of 1925, at which time respondent was informed the ear had been sold for storage and other charges on the fourteenth day of May, 1925, whereupon she instituted this action for conversion.

Appellant contends that whether she had any right to sell the automobile would depend upon the construction of the contract of the parties or sections 3051 and 3052 of the Civil Code.

The trial court has found upon conflicting evidence the facts as set forth above that appellant “would continue to hold and store said automobile for plaintiff until she returned and called for the same.” 'While it may appear somewhat unusual that a garage-keeper would make such an agreement, still, the trial court having so found, and an examination of the record contains sufficient testimony to support such finding, it is not the province of this court to hold otherwise.

The testimony of Mr. W. H. Neff supports this contention. A portion of his testimony is as…